Wikipedia:Article improvement drive/Removed/5 March 2005

Forest

 * Reason: A short, but extremely incomplete article. Even the linked forest type do not necessary have material on the ecology of a forest.


 * Support
 * 1) Circeus 18:37, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maurreen 07:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * It may be so short that it would qualify for COTW. 119 04:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bay Area Rapid Transit

 * Reason: I think this is within spitting distance of being an FAC, but since this project seems more active than peer review, being here might get the distance finished faster. The main shortcoming seems to be the currently very incomplete history, but there is much info easily gathered from the official site and places like a BART critique, such that I don't think it would take serious visits to the library to flesh it out--just someone(somepeople) to synthesize the info into NPOV, encyclopedic discussion. The FAC nominator so far has not addressed the objections, even tho', like I say, it seems quite do-able. (It already has nice pics, and I hope to add some when the weather clears, but they're forecasting clouds and rain here thru the weekend.) Niteowlneils 13:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Comments

Poetry

 * Reason: Saw this on the featured article removal candidates. It's a holdover from the less stringent FA rules, I'd guess. It definitely needs work -- that list is ugly, it's nowhere near comprehensive and there's a single reference! --Dmcdevit 07:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Maurreen 03:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments

Pope John Paul I

 * Reason: I tried to get this passed to FA, but couldn't. Too heavily biased and very rumor-ridden, it needs help.
 * Support


 * 1) Litefantastic 17:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 119 08:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Maurreen 04:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Not that far away from FA, methinks. It needs POV patching and maybe some reasearch, but the framework is there. -Litefantastic 17:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voyager 1

 * Reason: Both the voyager missions did a lot of science and very little is covered in the article.


 * Support
 * 1) 119 00:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) kaal 02:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * cannot nominate for the COTW as not stub, but still very brief.

Voyager 2

 * Reason: Both the voyager missions did a lot of science and very little is covered in the article.


 * Support
 * 1) 119 00:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) kaal 02:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * cannot nominate for the COTW as not stub, but still very brief.

Non-Aligned Movement

 * Reason: Extensively linked-to article which is currently very far from comprehensive and lacks references.


 * Support
 * 1) 119 00:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maurreen 03:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments

Duck and Cover (film)

 * Reason: The cold war paranoia film!


 * Support
 * 1) Litefantastic 00:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Circeus 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) 119 05:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I tried to get this passed to FA twice, and was shut down both times. When I discovered the COTW, I posted it there, but had to remove it when they told me things had to be stubs. Perhaps it will do better here. -Litefantastic 00:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Balsamic Vinegar

 * Reason: Copyright violation has crippled this article


 * Support
 * 1) Litefantastic 12:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --PopUpPirate 17:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Copyrighted content meant the article is pretty much empty, could be a really good article with effort. Not a stub so unsuitable for COTW--PopUpPirate 15:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a stub. 119 00:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd've thought so, but over at COTW they said it wasn't --PopUpPirate 11:18, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Anthropology

 * Reason: Writing is dense. Lacks references.


 * Support
 * 1) Maurreen 07:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments